A chara, – The Irish Times has been identified with various elites over the years, but to argue (Editorial July 24th), that representation be maintained for third-level institutions in a “reformed” Seanad takes this to a new level. I have a third level degree, but many of my friends and family do not. What gives me the right to have more of a say than any of those people in elections to a so-called democratic institution? Yet again we are seeing attempts to re-circulate privilege in Irish society under the guise of democratic reform. – Is mise,
Sir, – Brendan Ryan, a former leader of the Labour Party group in Seanad Éireann, says that “abolition was never the policy of the Labour Party – and it was not in Labour’s general election manifesto” (July 26th). This is an astounding statement. In fact, the 2011 Labour manifesto stated not once, but three times (on pages 5, 45 and 46) that the party would abolish the Seanad once it entered Government.
However misguided this policy may be, it is incredible that sections of the Labour Party are attempting to ditch their own policies for no other reason than to put distance between themselves and Fine Gael. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I agree with your comment (Editorial, July 24th) that reform of the Seanad is preferable to its abolition. How about starting by opening the electoral roll of the university constituencies to current students of these institutions over the age of 18? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – May I offer my simple solution to reform the Seanad? Let any person who stands for election to the Dáil be ineligible to serve in the Seanad for the lifetime of that parliament. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Your Editorial (July 24th) declared that the Seanad has not been fit for purpose for decades and advocates reform rather than abolition on the basis that no compelling case has been made for its abolition.
A fundamental objective of the parliamentary structure of a democratic republic is that the checks and balances within it are sufficiently robust to inspire and sustain public confidence and reputation. The 2011 Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International ranks Ireland 19th globally, a ranking that has not changed materially in a decade. The extent to which political parties are perceived by the Irish public to be most affected by corruption is reflected in a 2011 rating of 4.4, with a rating of five being defined “extremely corrupt” and a rating of one being defined “not at all corrupt”.
It is noteworthy that each of the top-five ranked nations – those most favourably perceived with respect to least corruption and the highest perceived ethical standards are unitary, not federal, states of a scale not much out of line with that of Ireland – New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Singapore. Each operates a unicameral parliamentary structure, with the first two having abandoned a bicameral structure in 1950 and 1953 respectively.
The first Dáil was unicameral when it met in January 1919 and the objective of inaugurating the first Seanad in 1922 was to afford southern unionists a facility to participate in the nascent State, but the Northern Ireland Assembly has been structured to accommodate all shades of opinion in a single chamber with comprehensive checks and balances facilitated through a committee system.
The practice of form following function has been applied to architecture for centuries. Should it not equally apply to parliamentary structures, starting with the concept of clarity of purpose for Seanad Éireann, then examining the contribution it could potentially make compared to alternative arrangements, rather than merely advocating reform on the basis that no alternative proposition has so far emerged? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The campaign to save the Seanad faces a major stumbling block: the institution is an irrelevance. How can I be so sure of that? Simple. Though I am not a resident of the Irish State, I have the right to vote at Seanad elections. The Irish State would never permit its citizens living abroad to have any meaningful voice in relation to institutions that actually matter. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I hear that Michael McDowell has spoken at the MacGill Summer School in support of keeping the Seanad (Home News, July 25th).
Mr McDowell is a man of great integrity whom I admire. But he comes from a background grounded in social and educational privilege and advantage which in this society has only been available to some.
Our society thus far had been one to a great extent of nepotism and cronyism. Privileges and advantages have been engineered in a territorial and tribal way and not universally, per our Constitution.
The Seanad represents the privileged and the influential rather than the ordinary people of this country. Easy money without commitment or effort. It has achieved nothing.
We have been promised a new way, where all of our children have equal access to opportunities.
The great majority of Irish people, over generations, have worked hard in a system of broad discrimination, in the area of tax, in access to higher education and career opportunities. Minority groups with political pull who have not contributed to nearly the same extent, have enjoyed the benefits without the sweat or financial sacrifice.
The majority has been promised a say in this matter. This promise cannot and must not be rescinded. – Yours, etc,